Archive for the 'bad character' Category

Regina v C – WLR Daily

Regina v C [2010] EWCA Crim 2971; [2011] WLR (D) 347

“Where a defendant wished to challenge evidence of earlier convictions which the Crown sought to deploy as relevant to the question of whether the defendant was responsible for the commission of the offences for which he was on trial, the defendant’s bare assertion that he did not commit those earlier offences was inadequate; it was essential that the defendant provide a detailed defence statement identifying all the ingredients of the case which he proposed to advance for the purpose of discharging the evidential burden of proving that he did not commit the earlier offences.”

WLR Daily, 23rd December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Attorney General: Contempt of Court: why it still matters – Attorney General’s Office

“The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC MP, has delivered the Criminal Bar Association’s Kalisher lecture entitled ‘Contempt of Court: why it still matters’.”

Full story

Attorney General’s Office, 12th October 2010

Source: www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk

Regina v Hamer – WLR Daily

Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235

“A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such.”

WLR Daily, 20th August 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Brewster – WLR Daily

Regina v Brewster  [2010] EWCA Crim 1194; [2010] WLR (D) 159

“Where a party sought to admit evidence of a witness’s bad character which bore only indirectly on his credibility, and that credibility was a matter in issue in the proceedings and of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, such evidence was only admissible pursuant to s 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as evidence of substantial probative value on the issue of creditworthiness if it was reasonably capable of assisting a fair minded jury to reach a view as to whether the witness’s evidence was worthy of belief.”

WLR Daily, 25th June 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Miller – WLR Daily

Regina v Miller [2010] EWCA Crim 1153; [2010] WLR (D) 142

“In criminal proceedings, the circumstances in which one party would be permitted pursuant to s 100(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ask a witness a question in cross-examination with a view to eliciting an answer implicating that witness in bad behaviour, which behaviour that party would be otherwise unable to prove, were infrequent and limited in scope.”

WLR Daily, 3rd June 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Braithwaite – WLR Daily

Regina v Braithwaite [2010] EWCA Crim 1082; [2010] WLR (D) 141

“Material contained in police crime reports that unproven allegations had been made against a person who was someone other than a defendant, or that that person had been investigated in respect of an offence, would rarely be of substantial probative value to an issue at trial sufficient to render it admissible as evidence of bad character against that person pursuant to s 100(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.”

WLR Daily, 3rd June 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Criminal law: use of hearsay evidence; professional conduct – Law Society’s Gazette

“The Supreme Court in R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC14 has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that, in appropriate circumstances, the Crown may rely wholly or mainly on hearsay evidence to establish its case. The Court of Appeal had, however, emphasised the need to check the reliability of the hearsay evidence in such situations.”

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 11th February 2010

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

The impact of bad character provisions on the courts – Ministry of Justice

“This report provides evidence from six court centres over eight months in 2006 on the use of applications to admit bad character evidence in criminal cases. This provision was introduced as part of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and was designed to allow evidence of a defendant’s bad character to play a greater part in the prosecution of cases.”

Full story

Ministry of Justice, 9th March 2009

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

R v Freeman; R v Crawford – WLR Daily

R v Freeman; R v Crawford [2008] EWCA Crim 1863; [2008] WLR (D) 287

“Some care was required in directing a jury when approaching the cross-admissibility of bad character evidence.”

WLR Daily, 11th August 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Nguyen – Times Law Reports

Regina v Nguyen

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

“Where the Crown chose to rely on relevant bad character evidence which it had decided not to make the subject of a criminal charge, that could not have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit such evidence.”

The Times, 16th May 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

R v Ngyuen – WLR Daily

R v Ngyuen [2008] EWCA Crim 585; [2008] WLR (D) 94

The mere fact that the Crown chose to rely on bad character evidence which it had decided not to make the subject of a criminal charge could not of itself have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit that evidence.”

WLR Daily, 20th March 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Trusting the Jury – Speech by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers

Trusting the Jury (PDF)

Speech by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

The Criminal Bar Association Kalisher Lecture, 23rd October 2007.

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

R v. Wallace – WLR Daily

R v. Wallace 

“Where the case against a defendant on one count relied on circumstantial evidence relating to other counts charged in the same proceedings, that evidence fell within the definition of bad character in s 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and was therefore only admissible pursuant to the bad character provisions under that Act.”

WLR Daily, 16th July 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v Campbell (Kenneth) – Times Law Reports

Propensity and credibility distinction unrealistic

Regina v. Campbell (Kenneth) 

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

“Once a defendant’s previous convictions had been admitted in evidence, the jury could attach significance to them in any respect in which they were relevant.”

The Times, 4th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Regina v. Tirnaveanu – Times Law Reports

Admitting previous misconduct

Regina v. Tirnaveanu

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

“Evidence of misconduct by a defendant was admissible at trial if it had some nexus with the offences charged.”

The Times, 2nd July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

R v. Campbell – WLR Daily

R v. Campbell [2007] EWCA Crim 1472 

“If a defendant’s previous convictions were admitted in evidence, the jury could attach significance to them in any respect in which they were relevant and relevance could normally be deduced by the application of common sense. The mere fact that there was an issue as to whether a defendant’s case was truthful did not mean that evidence could be admitted to show that he had a propensity to be untruthful.”

WLR Daily, 26th June 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

R v. Tirnaveanu – WLR Daily

R v. Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239 

“Evidence of misconduct by a defendant was evidence “to do with” the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant was charged and therefore excluded from the definition of bad character in s 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, if it had some nexus in time with that offence.”

WLR Daily, 24th May 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina v. Osbourne – Times Law Reports

Shouting not relevant to offence

Regina v. Osbourne 

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

“The fact that a defendant shouted at his partner in the context of a charge of murdering his friend was not evidence amounting to reprehensible behaviour within the bad character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.”

The Times, 24th April 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.


December 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Categories